Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-calling of witness

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2025

MOHAMAD RASHID BIN SAHUTI

Citation

BA-45A-159-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-45A-159-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The prosecution proved identity of the drugs, possession and knowledge by linking the sling bag containing cannabis and the accused's identity card to the accused; the weight invoked the statutory presumption of trafficking which the accused failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities; non‑calling of the investigating officer was justified by medical evidence and did not merit adverse inference; accordingly conviction under s39B(1)(a) DDA is warranted.
16 Jan 2023

AIDIL HAZRUL BIN BOKHARI

Citation

AF-83D-124-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AF-83D-124-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The chemist's evidence established the nature and weight of the drug, but the prosecution failed to prove possession because proximity alone did not establish knowledge or exclusive control; non-calling of the accused's wife created a material gap. On maximum evaluation a prima facie case was not made out, therefore the accused was acquitted and discharged without being called to make his defence.
1 Oct 2021

Dhivyaprabu A/l Panir Selvam [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

Citation

W-05(M)-253-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

W-05(M)-253-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The conviction was unsafe because the trial judge in practice relied on CCTV footage that had been ruled inadmissible, failed to resolve material contradictions between key eyewitnesses and to link any weapon to the Appellant, and the prosecution omitted to call a material witness and to remedy investigative lapses; multiple reasonable inferences favoured the accused so the conviction could not be sustained and was set aside.
15 Jan 2021

PENDAKWARAYA M. Muralitharan

Citation

AB - 41S - 3 - 06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB - 41S - 3 - 06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Conviction unsafe and set aside because prosecution failed to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt: the missing original plastic packet broke the chain of evidence on identity of the seized drugs and the prosecution failed to call a material co‑arrestee witness (Prakash) whose evidence supported the accused's version; the trial magistrate also misdirected by finding possession, custody and control when the charge was limited to possession, causing prejudice to accused.
1 Oct 2019

1. SHEIKDAWUD M. MOHAMED MUSTAFA 2. RAJANGKAM CHEPP YUDAYAR

Citation

B-05(M)-386 & 389-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

M
Case number

B-05(M)-386 & 389-08/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Stephen David was not a material witness to the specific drug transaction; prosecution legitimately exercised discretion not to call him; PW1's unshaken identification and evidence of negotiations established trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 despite no completed delivery or payment; therefore no adverse inference or procedural unfairness and convictions stand.

Malaysia Case Law

MOHAMAD RASHID BIN SAHUTI

AIDIL HAZRUL BIN BOKHARI

Dhivyaprabu A/l Panir Selvam [Jabatan Peguam Negara]

PENDAKWARAYA M. Muralitharan

1. SHEIKDAWUD M. MOHAMED MUSTAFA 2. RAJANGKAM CHEPP YUDAYAR